5 ms·

I'm not sure about that definition. If your software solves a problem that many users face, that makes it useful and, presumably, valuable, but it doesn't mean

I'm not sure about that definition. If your software solves a problem that many users face, that makes it useful and, presumably, valuable, but it doesn't mean it's of higher quality than niche software of relatively little use.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
scott_w 2mo ago
OP didn’t say “little-used” software, they said “nobody,” and I think this was meant to be taken literally in this context. Software that has 0 users is of no use to anyone by definition.
- ____mr____ 2mo ago
  If you are using quality as a metric then something having more quality would mean it having more value to more people. So a piece of software working 95% of the time to 1 mil users is deemed "of higher quality" by this metric than a piece of software working 100% of the time to 1k users. I don't think this definition for quality is good at all
  - scott_w 2mo ago
    You’re still missing the point: software used by LITERALLY 0 PEOPLE cannot be useful. Whether it’s well written is completely irrelevant because it, by definition, is providing value to NOBODY. Yes, such software exists.
    - sfn42 2mo ago
      And you're still missing the point that software nobody uses can be of excellent quality.
      - MaxBarraclough 2mo ago
        Agreed. The quality of a software package doesn't change when its last user stops using it. We don't say that the Apollo Guidance Computer software is of low quality these days given that nobody's using it. Software quality is, roughly speaking, intrinsic to a software product. Its usefulness is not intrinsic, it can depend on any number of external factors. Quality is not the same as usefulness.
        scott_w 2mo ago
        But if it’s unused then how does one measure quality? We can write all the tests, look at architecture patterns, etc. but software truly is a case of “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
        sfn42 2mo ago
        By your logic, IKEA is the highest quality furniture because it's in more homes than for example Herman Miller furniture.
        scott_w 2mo ago
        But that’s not my argument at all. I’m saying that quality is impossible to measure if 0 people use it. Once you go above 0, it can be measured and it’s not necessarily related to how many people use it.
        ____mr____ 2mo ago
        It is still possible to measure the quality of software (or other products) simply by defining a metric that proves quality and testing for it If I were to write 2 simple functions that reverse an array, and one successfully reverses an array and the other just randomizes it - despite never using this function, we could all agree that function 1 is of higher quality than function 2. This is an extreme example but the same can be done for, lets say, speed or error handling.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

scott_w 2mo ago

OP didn’t say “little-used” software, they said “nobody,” and I think this was meant to be taken literally in this context. Software that has 0 users is of no use to anyone by definition.

____mr____ 2mo ago
If you are using quality as a metric then something having more quality would mean it having more value to more people. So a piece of software working 95% of the time to 1 mil users is deemed "of higher quality" by this metric than a piece of software working 100% of the time to 1k users. I don't think this definition for quality is good at all
- scott_w 2mo ago
  You’re still missing the point: software used by LITERALLY 0 PEOPLE cannot be useful. Whether it’s well written is completely irrelevant because it, by definition, is providing value to NOBODY. Yes, such software exists.
  - sfn42 2mo ago
    And you're still missing the point that software nobody uses can be of excellent quality.
    - MaxBarraclough 2mo ago
      Agreed. The quality of a software package doesn't change when its last user stops using it. We don't say that the Apollo Guidance Computer software is of low quality these days given that nobody's using it. Software quality is, roughly speaking, intrinsic to a software product. Its usefulness is not intrinsic, it can depend on any number of external factors. Quality is not the same as usefulness.
      - scott_w 2mo ago
        But if it’s unused then how does one measure quality? We can write all the tests, look at architecture patterns, etc. but software truly is a case of “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
        sfn42 2mo ago
        By your logic, IKEA is the highest quality furniture because it's in more homes than for example Herman Miller furniture.
        scott_w 2mo ago
        But that’s not my argument at all. I’m saying that quality is impossible to measure if 0 people use it. Once you go above 0, it can be measured and it’s not necessarily related to how many people use it.
        ____mr____ 2mo ago
        It is still possible to measure the quality of software (or other products) simply by defining a metric that proves quality and testing for it If I were to write 2 simple functions that reverse an array, and one successfully reverses an array and the other just randomizes it - despite never using this function, we could all agree that function 1 is of higher quality than function 2. This is an extreme example but the same can be done for, lets say, speed or error handling.